Planning panel rejects hyperscale data center zoning request after sharp neighborhood pushback

The Lubbock Planning and Zoning Commission voted 4–3 to deny a rezoning request for a proposed hyperscale data center and on‑site solar field, a project the applicant said would span roughly 936 acres and include substantial on‑site power generation. The hearing drew more than a dozen residents who said the plan would worsen long‑standing environmental and health burdens in North and East Lubbock.

The developer, represented by Terry Holman of Hugo Reed and Associates, told the commission the complex would be a low‑activity, climate‑cooled data center that needs a specific‑use GI (General Industrial) designation so it can host on‑site solar and supplemental behind‑the‑meter gas power. "This is a large, very large project," Holman said, describing the site as "almost 9 miles" around the perimeter and noting a phased approach that could include solar fields outside city limits. John Osborne of the Lubbock Economic Development Alliance said bringing the land inside the city would allow municipal water service and infrastructure improvements the developer needs.

Residents and community leaders pushed back. Milton Lee, president of the Lubbock NAACP, said the pattern of industrial zoning in East and Northeast Lubbock reflects a history of unequal burdens. "We're tired of it," Lee said, urging commissioners to consider environmental justice impacts. Other commenters raised possible impacts to private wells, dust and noise, and cited earlier local decisions to turn down data center projects that would have used millions of gallons of aquifer water.

Staff described the project as early‑stage: the specific‑use zoning would be only the first of many steps, including electrical capacity studies that can take about 18 months and environmental site assessments. Staff and proponents said the data center would rely on a closed‑loop cooling system and municipal water when possible to avoid aquifer draws, and that modern facilities aim to limit ongoing water use after initial commissioning.

After questions about water sourcing, noise, construction traffic and the possibility of on‑site turbines, commissioners split. The chair called the roll and the motion to approve received three votes in favor and four opposed, so the motion failed. Planning staff noted the case will still be forwarded to City Council for consideration on Jan. 27 at 2 p.m. The commission’s decision leaves unresolved whether the project will clear the additional technical, environmental and utility hurdles required for construction.

The council date and further staff studies are the next scheduled steps.